global warming skepticshttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1557/all
enWhen Deniers Deny Their Ownhttp://www.desmogblog.com/when-deniers-deny-their-own
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/headinsand_0_4.jpg?itok=IOMGxH6C" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Who can you trust, if not your own advisers? That is the inconvenient question raised by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&amp;hp"><em><span class="caps">NYT</span></em> reporter Andrew C. Revkin</a> in a newly published article that reveals the extent to which the coal and oil industries ignored the advice of their own scientists on the question of climate change.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=3&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sourcewatch.org%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DGlobal_Climate_Coalition&amp;ei=kGnxSZDvC4iQtAPqrfj7Cg&amp;usg=AFQjCNHPdb4QG-iIQp4Rj5VGcgwcF8emTg">Global Climate Coalition</a> (how’s that for an Orwellian name?), an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change “could not be refuted.”<!--break--></p>
<p>That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as <span class="caps">CO</span>2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”</p>
<p>The advisory committee that authored the 17-page report may have disagreed with the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s conclusion that anthropogenic activities were warming the climate, but that did not mean that it hewed to the skeptic line. Indeed, though it recognized that “the contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” it dismissed them as unpersuasive at best – plainly stating that “they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”</p>
<p>When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record. (What, you were expecting something else?) And, if that didn’t keep all the snooping reporters away, just play dumb – as William O’Keefe, the former head of the <span class="caps">GCC</span>, smartly demonstrates here:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”</p>
<p>So despite being proven wrong from the get-go, the <span class="caps">GCC</span> proceeded along its merry way, sowing confusion and dooming the government to protracted inaction. As George Monbiot astutely points out, Big Oil and Big Coal did not need to win the argument in order to win the debate: all they had to do was show up with a larger megaphone (and deeper pockets).</p>
<p>This again points to the utter failure of the mainstream media, which, in its overwrought efforts to give both “sides” of the argument a fair shake, legitimized the skeptics’ views and helped sow doubt. Or, as <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/How_balanced_journalism_helped_the_climate_change_deniers.html"><em>Attytood</em>’s Will Bunch</a> put it: “What’s disturbing (although, again, not all <em>that</em> surprising) is the role that supposed “journalistic ethics” played in spreading this Big Lie, by cluelessly giving these charlatans equal play with the established science on the issue.”</p>
<p>Amen.<br /></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/andrew-revkin">andrew revkin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1169">greenhouse gases</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2126">global climate coalition</a></div></div></div>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:27:53 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3879 at http://www.desmogblog.comEarth to Jacoby: I Got Your Global Warming Right Herehttp://www.desmogblog.com/earth-jacoby-i-got-your-global-warming-right-here
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Jeff-Jacoby-color_3.jpg?itok=1t_gk6bU" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Not to let himself be outdone by his skeptic colleague in good standing, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/george-will-and-jouralistic-malpractice">George Will</a>, <em>The Boston Globe</em>’s Jeff Jacoby has penned an <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/">equally vacuous and misinformed column</a> posing the thought-provoking question: “Where’s global warming?”</p>
<p>It’s hard to know where to start. From the outset, I was tempted to just rehash <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/george-wills-big-climate-change-adventure">my previous post about “global cooling” and climate variability</a> or to mine Mitchell’s George Will debunking posts for some good material. (This line, in particular, answers his question rather well: “In other words: if you want to see climate change, look out the window.”) In light of some of his other claims about global temperatures and Arctic sea ice, however, I thought I’d do some of my own snooping.<!--break--></p>
<p>First, to give Jacoby his due, he is correct in stating that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade and that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (<span class="caps">NSIDC</span>) <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html">acknowledged a few weeks ago that an error in one of its satellite sensors</a> had caused it to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers) by mid-February. And, yes, Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis did note in their study that the recent cooling period appeared “unprecedented over the instrumental period.”</p>
<p>Jacoby’s problem, and that of his fellow know-nothings, is that he never elaborates on these points. Take the <span class="caps">NSIDC</span> data. While he doesn’t state it explicitly, Jacoby’s intent in citing the error is to generally cast doubt on the reliability of satellites and other climate monitoring technologies.</p>
<p>It’s certainly true that these advanced devices occasionally malfunction, which is why scientists regularly verify their progress, but, on the whole, they are very good at what they do. And though 500,000 square kilometers is not an insignificant figure, it bears repeating that <a href="http://desmogblog.com/arctic-sea-ice-melting-no-matter-how-bad-george-will-doesnt-want-it">the total Arctic sea ice extent for the month of February was 14.8 million square kilometers</a>.</p>
<p>Nor did the error significantly affect the accuracy of <span class="caps">NSIDC</span>’s time series numbers, as Bill Chapman, a University of Illinois climate scientist <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/22/a-wrinkle-in-ice-or-not/">explained to <em>The Loom</em>’s Carl Zimmer</a>:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>As one check, we have been comparing our time series with those from the independent data source <span class="caps">AMSR</span>-E. They are just about identical so we are comfortable that our time series remain solid. Our time series and therefore the statement are unaffected by the recent satellite problems. If the sensor degrades a lot more, our numbers will be affected, but to date, they are not.”</p>
<p>More important, unlike its critics, the <span class="caps">NSDIC</span> quickly recognized its error and released a detailed analysis explaining how the satellite sensor had erred and what its impact on the data was. Another critical point that the deniers ignore: This type of near-real-time data never makes its way into the peer-reviewed literature and therefore has no bearing on the validity of past and current studies. As the analysis notes:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>As discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals.”</p>
<p>Jacoby’s claim that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade also misses the point and perfectly illustrates deniers’ tendency to cherry pick the data. As both <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/">Joe Romm</a> and <a href="http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/2008-will-probably-be-10th-hottest-year-on-record/"><em>Greenfyre</em>’s Mike Kaulbars</a> have pointed out, 2008 also happened to be the tenth hottest year on record.</p>
<p>Indeed, Jacoby’s point seems even more irrelevant when you consider that this has been the hottest decade to date so far according to <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/"><span class="caps">NASA</span></a>, <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/16/sorry-deniers-hadley-center-and-wmo-say-2000s-are-easily-the-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history/">the World Meteorological Organization (<span class="caps">WMO</span>) and the Hadley Center</a>. Moreover, the six warmest years in <span class="caps">NASA</span>’s record have all fallen within the last decade, and, as all scientists agree, global mean temperatures have been steadily increasing over the last 150 years. </p>
<p>The warmest year to date did occur in 1998, but that was largely due to the disproportionate influence of the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (<span class="caps">ENSO</span>) signal, as <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/"><em>RealClimate</em>’s Gavin Schmidt noted last year</a>.</p>
<p>Removing the signal, as Gavin did, tells a slightly different story:</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>The basic picture over the long term doesn’t change. The trends over the last 30 years remain though the interannual variability is slightly reduced (as you’d expect). The magnitude of the adjustment varies between +/-0.25ºC. You can more clearly see the impacts of the volcanoes (Agung: 1963, El Chichon: 1982, Pinatubo: 1991). <strong>Over the short term though, it does make a difference. Notably, the extreme warmth in 1998 is somewhat subdued, as is last winter’s coolness. The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Niño) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in <span class="caps">GISTEMP</span>) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v)</strong>. This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years!”</p>
<p>Jacoby’s complaint that the mainstream media has largely ignored the “recent cold phenomena” is hogwash, of course. As Joe and others have noted, it has actually been quite the contrary, with even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?ex=1205038800&amp;en=33ffc45ee4c4a580&amp;ei=5070&amp;emc=eta1"><em>The New York Times</em></a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather"><em>The Guardian</em></a> reporting on the “unprecedented” cooling.</p>
<p>He ends the column on this conciliatory note: “Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” Good advice, Jeff. Now follow it.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/science">Science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1916">global cooling</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3619">research</a></div></div></div>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:03:36 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3741 at http://www.desmogblog.comHot or Not? Making Sense of Climate Variabilityhttp://www.desmogblog.com/hot-or-not-making-sense-climate-variability
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/temperature%20anomaly_6.jpg?itok=AbRrjwGV" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>To say that climate know-nothings like to pick and choose when it comes to interpreting the science is something of an understatement.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Prominent” – and I use the term loosely here – deniers like Dennis Avery, S. Fred Singer and <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10866">Michael Asher</a> have made a cottage industry of playing loose with the numbers and extrapolating short-term trends to make sweeping statements about global warming (see: one unusually cold month means global warming is over).</p>
<p>Which is why I have a feeling <a href="http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2008GL037022-pip.pdf">this study</a> (sub. required), entitled <a href="http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2008GL037022-pip.pdf">“Has the climate recently shifted?”</a> (which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal <em>Geophysical Research Letters</em>), will catch many a denier’s eye. The main takeaway from this study is that there is a significant degree of variability in our climate system, and that, even though we may be entering a period of warming “stasis,” long-term trends still point to significant warming due to anthropogenic forcing. <!--break--></p>
<p>According to the authors, Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the climate seems to have come to a point where two important modes of variability – the Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes, to be exact – have synchronized, or become coupled. This, they say, results in the climate system being “thrown into a new state,” which will likely be marked by a flattening of the global average temperature trend.</p>
<p>How could a modal synchronization precipitate such a dramatic shift in the climate system?</p>
<p>The reason, Swanson and Tsonis explain, is that the climate system becomes much more sensitive to the possibility of a shift when these important modes of variability align. When coupling between the two increases, the climate system is destabilized and a new and different state emerges – this is what climate scientists refer to as the “theory of synchronized chaos.”</p>
<p>The authors provide a helpful analogy to illustrate how this theory works:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">“Think of a bicycle team engaged in team time trial. The riders are all synchronized, with their motions carefully planned to maximize the teams’ overall speed. However, if those riders were coupled together, for example by attaching their bikes together with a rope, the slightest misstep among one of the bikers would be communicated immediately through the team and would lead to a group crash.”</div>
<p>Because such couplings have coincided with all the major climate shifts of the last century, they believe that the latest synchronization of the two modes, which occurred in 2001/02, indicates a temporary break in the consistent warming trend of the last three decades. (A multidecadal period of cooling had preceded the last coupling, which happened in 1976/77.)</p>
<p>They recognize, though, that the high degree of variability inherent to the climate system makes any prediction difficult and speculative, at best. Indeed, they attribute the recent period of cooling to an <em>internal</em> shift of climate processes, which they say remains poorly understood, and note that slight changes in how the oceans and atmosphere absorb and radiate heat could have influenced other short-term trends.</p>
<p>The high degree of uncertainty inherent to climate modeling itself makes this study, like the many that preceded it, thought-provoking but by no means conclusive – something the authors readily acknowledge in their conclusion: “Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time.”</p>
<p>The rest of the section should be required reading for those who will undoubtedly use the authors’ hypothesis to support their erroneous views. Here are a few key passages:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing.”</p>
</div>
<p>…</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">“Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steady increasing global mean temperature.”
</div>
<p>This last passage is crucial:</p>
<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">“Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies. If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, <strong>warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability</strong>.”<br /></div>
<p>To deniers, who will <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44431">ignore the authors’ caveats</a>, this study will seem like manna from heaven; to the rest of us, this will just serve as another reminder of how bad things could become.</p>
<p>
</p><hr /><strong>This month we’re giving away <span class="caps">FREE</span> copies Keith Farnish’s new book <a href="http://greenbooks.co.uk/store/times-up-p-300.html">Times Up: an uncivilzed solution to a global crisis.</a></strong>
<p><strong>Go here to find out more details about <a href="../../desmogblog-free-book-giveaway">DeSmogBlog’s monthly book give-away.</a></strong></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/science">Science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3619">research</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4058">temperatures</a></div></div></div>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:24:32 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3730 at http://www.desmogblog.comNew EU President to Address the Faithful at International "Skeptic" Conferencehttp://www.desmogblog.com/new-eu-president-address-skeptic-faithful-international-skeptic-conference
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/405px-Vaclav_Klaus_headshot_0.jpg?itok=Ad4mz_Ya" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The new face of the European Union also happens to be the old face of global warming skepticism. Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic and, since January 1, the rotating president of the European Union, will <a href="http://newsblaze.com/story/20090122141931zzzz.nb/topstory.html">give a keynote speech</a> at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York.</p>
<p>The widely ridiculed skeptic gathering, which <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_2008_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change">last year drew only a few hundred attendees</a> (and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/">no actual climate scientists</a>), will address the “question” of whether global warming “was ever really a crisis,” according to its lead sponsor, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-conference-celebrates-science-for-sale">The Heartland Institute</a>.<!--break--></p>
<p>By the way, if you’re at all interested in attending, the Heartland Institute will make it worth your while: a 20% discount on the $720 registration fee for signing the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Global Warming Petition – or, as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jan/19/1">the <em>Guardian</em>’s Leo Hickman put it</a>, “a $144 reward for agreeing to be a ‘free-thinking’ climate change denier.” If you need help to make up your mind, <a href="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/a-video-for-the-heartland-institute/">visit Frank Bi’s website</a> to see a nice introductory video.</p>
<p>Klaus, a longtime climate crank, is no stranger to these parts, having also attended the 2008 meeting. At the time, he told the <em><span class="caps">AP</span></em> that climate “is just a joke,” and that he was “afraid that global warming alarmists are trying to kill the freedom of people and prosperity.” And, in a 2007 column he wrote for the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html"><em>Financial Times</em></a>, he compared “ambitious” environmentalism to communism, deeming the former the “biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.”</p>
<p>In the same piece, he cited the work of such climate “luminaries” as Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton as evidence that global warming was nothing more than an illicit sham perpetrated by “Malthusian pessimists,” irrational scientists and other Gore cronies.</p>
<p>His “hit” book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” (underwritten by – surprise, surprise – the Competitive Enterprise Institute), built upon these, shall we say, “misguided” views by making the case that existing mitigation policies were a “dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity around the world” and not justified by the science. “The theory of global warming and the hypothesis on its causes, which has spread around massively nowadays, may be a bad theory, it may also be a valueless theory, but in any case it is a very dangerous theory,” he concluded.</p>
<p>While he may very well be a perfectly capable head of state in all other respects (though even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Klaus">that is up for dispute</a>), having, after all, won re-election to a second term in 2008, the fact that he is an outspoken climate denier and noted Eurosceptic do not square well with his new role as <span class="caps">EU</span> President.</p>
<p>Given that the <span class="caps">EU</span> recently unveiled a new plan to curb greenhouse gas levels by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and provide billions of dollars in aid to developing countries, Klaus hardly seems like the man to lead the <span class="caps">EU</span> – even if it is only a largely ceremonial position. Brokering the compromises with countries like China and India that will be needed to ensure the success of the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks could be made needlessly more difficult.</p>
<p>The other <span class="caps">EU</span> heads may not be able to displace him from his position, but I certainly hope they and other world leaders choose to ignore him when it comes to negotiating the next climate treaty.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/vaclav-klaus">Vaclav Klaus</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/competitive-enterprise-institute">competitive enterprise institute</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/740">european union</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3951">international conference on climate change 2009</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3952">richard lindzen</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3953">the heartland institute</a></div></div></div>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:30:59 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3666 at http://www.desmogblog.comA troubling trend in Global Warming Denial on the internethttp://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-global-warming-denial-blogosphere
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><h3>Our 2008 analysis of global warming misinformation finds that there was a very significant upswing in online activity.</h3>
<h3>This trend should be troubling to <span class="caps">US</span> policymakers and campaigners wanting to implement new greenhouse gas reduction strategies. <br /></h3>
<p>Here’s the stats we’ve generated as evidence of our conclusions (click any of the images to enlarge):</p>
<p><strong>“Global Warming” + hoax</strong></p>
<p>A Google blog search for the term “global warming” + hoax<strong> </strong>between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 49,719 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 22,077 page results.</p>
<p><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-hoax%20copy.jpg"><img style="border: 0pt none; vertical-align: text-top;" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-hoax%20copy%20copy.jpg" border="0" width="309" height="297" /></a></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<hr /><p><strong>“Global Warming” + lie</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">A Google blog search for the term “global warming” + lie<strong> </strong>between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 100,770 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 50,016 page results.</p>
<p><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-lie%20copy.jpg"><img src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-lie%20copy.jpg" border="0" alt="global-warming-lie" width="311" height="298" /></a></p>
<hr /><p><strong>“Global Warming” + alarmists</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">A Google blog search for the term “global warming” +<strong> </strong>alarmists<strong> </strong>between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 27,298 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 13,864 page results.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-alarmists%20copy.jpg"><img style="vertical-align: text-top;" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-alarmists%20copy.jpg" border="0" alt="global-warming-alarmists" width="312" height="298" /></a></p>
<hr /><p><strong>“Global Warming” + skeptic</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">A Google blog search for the term “global warming” +<strong> </strong>skeptic between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 73,956 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 38,346 page results.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-skeptic%20copy.jpg"><img style="vertical-align: text-top;" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/global-warming-skeptic%20copy.jpg" border="0" alt="global-warming-skeptic" width="308" height="295" /></a></p>
<p>[<strong>Note: </strong>For those who’ve never visited our site before and might be wondering what I mean by “climate science misinformation,” you can check out this article written by DeSmog co-founder James Hoggan on <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam">Slamming the Skeptic Scam.]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Outside of a small band of ideologically motivated outlets, the majority of the mainstream media is unwilling to cover the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire. With this the case, the internet is exploding with such information. And at the same time that we’re seeing significantly more of this misinformation being spread about global warming online, we’re also seeing more people than ever using the internet as their main source of news and information.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Here’s some recent findings that should trouble anyone working to implement new laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>1) The internet is now a larger source of news for people than newspapers.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Research conducted in December, 2008 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that the <a href="http://people-press.org/report/479/internet-overtakes-newspapers-as-news-source">internet is now used as a news source</a> by more Americans than newspapers. The report found that: “for the first time in a Pew survey, more people say they rely mostly on the internet for news than cite newspapers (35%). Television continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for national and international news, at 70%.”</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/newspaper-versus-internet.gif"><img src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/newspaper-versus-internet.gif" border="0" alt="newspaper-versus-internet" width="207" height="203" /></a></p>
<p><strong>2) Millions of people are seeking global warming information online.</strong></p>
<p>In an average month more than 2.2 million people in the United States search for the term “global warming” on Google and another 368,000 people search for the term “climate change.” The more climate misinformation that is posted on the internet, the more likely that people searching for information on global warming will be exposed to it. In fact the number 2 search result for “global warming” on Google is currently a website run by the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/cei-struggles-to-remain-relevant-bashes-gore">thoroughly discredited </a>Competitive Enterprise Institute:</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/cei-google-global-warming%20copy.jpg"><img style="border: 0pt none;" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/cei-google-global-warming%20copy.jpg" border="0" alt="cei-global-warming-screenshot" width="350" height="92" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">And the results of all this?</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Opinion polls conducted in the United States over the last year confirm the upward trend in people who believe that global warming is <span class="caps">NOT</span> caused by human activity. One series of polls <a href="http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32472/fewer_americans_worried_about_climate_change">conducted by Rasmussen Reports</a> found that between April and December, 2008 the number of respondents who attributed global warming to “long term planetary trends” and not human activity <em>increased</em> from 34 percent to 43 percent.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/rasmussen-poll-global-warming.jpg"><img src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/rasmussen-poll-global-warming.jpg" border="0" alt="poll-global-warming" width="257" height="220" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">This upswing is in spite of the 2007 <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>) </a>releasing a report by top climate scientists from around the world concluding that global warming is “very likely”—or 90 per cent certain—caused by humans burning fossil fuels.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Legislators are going to be very hard pressed to implement strict new greenhouse gas regulations if almost a majority of the public believes that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. As will environmental groups who are urging average citizens to take personal action to reduce their carbon footprint.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Many people (even some well-known climate activists) have told me that the “deniers’ days are over,” so I hope these statistics are a wake-up call.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">If this is going to be the year that we have the political leadership in the United States with the will to take real action on climate change, we’re all going to have to double, or even triple our efforts to dispel the myths and lies being spread online about the realities of the situation.</p>
<hr /><p><strong>This month we’re giving away <span class="caps">FREE</span> copies </strong><strong><strong><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Coming-Clean/Michael-Brune/e/9781578051496"><em>Coming Clean<span class="subtitle">: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal.</span></em></a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Go here to find out more details about <a href="../../desmogblog-free-book-giveaway">DeSmogBlog’s monthly book give-away.</a></strong></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3911">global warming information</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3912">global warming online</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3913">global warming 2008</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3914">global warming online stats</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3915">the state of global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3916">global warming public opinion</a></div></div></div>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:55:49 +0000Kevin Grandia3635 at http://www.desmogblog.comDebunking Joanne Nova's 'Skeptics Handbook' part 2: Yes, Global Warming is Real and it's Still Happeninghttp://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/headinsand_0.jpg?itok=R0fOU58_" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><h2>Today we’ll look at two more of the (supposedly) bullet-proof points in<a href="http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/"> Joanne Nova’s “The Skeptics Handbook.”</a></h2>
<p><a href="http://joannenova.com.au/about/">“Professional Speaker” turned climate expert Nova </a>rehashes two of the more common skeptic talking points, that: the world is no longer warming and the Vostok ice core record proves that rising <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions are not the cause of warmer temperatures.</p>
<p>As skeptics love to point out, the planet has not appreciably warmed over the last decade even though carbon dioxide levels have greatly increased. While it’s true that surface temperatures have remained essentially flat over the last 10 years, taking such a myopic view of the temperature record obscures the much more meaningful long-term trends.</p>
<p>Indeed, if you look at the temperature record of the last 150 years or so, you’ll find it extremely hard not to notice the obvious upward trend (there’s a reason why the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/">nine warmest years on record have all occurred between 1998 and 2008</a>).<br /><!--break--><br />You’ll notice that I specifically mentioned <em>surface</em> temperatures; that’s because the datasets that look at surface warming (those developed by the <span class="caps">UK</span> Met Office Hadley Center) are only one aspect of this complicated picture. If you were to look instead at other datasets, such as <span class="caps">NASA</span>’s, which include the Arctic Ocean (the area of the planet that has been warming the fastest) in their measurements, then you’d see that <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html">there hasn’t been a cooling trend since 2003</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, 2005 was the warmest year on record, with 1998 and 2007 tied for second place. Yet even the <span class="caps">NASA</span> datasets, which assume that the Arctic Ocean’s surface temperature is roughly the same as that of nearby land-based stations, probably underestimate the degree of warming.<br /><br />The real measure we should be keeping a close eye on is <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/">how much heat the oceans are absorbing</a>. And, wouldn’t you know it, their heat content has steadily increased since 1999. That’s a problem because, as <em>Real Climate</em>’s Gavin Schmidt explains, ocean heat content trends reflect “the planetary radiative imbalance” – that the planet is absorbing more heat from the sun each year than it is losing.</p>
<p>Oceans exert a moderating influence on the climate by soaking up extra heat; therefore, if they take in a little more heat then usual, surface temperatures will tend to fall slightly (even though the planet’s overall heat content is going up). On the other hand, if the oceans absorb less (something that could happen more often if we keep the heat on), surface temperatures will increase. <br /><br />But, wait, skeptics will say: All of that is beside the point because the Vostok ice cores have now clearly demonstrated that temperature leads <span class="caps">CO</span>2 – so rising <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions can’t be blamed for higher average temperatures. Not quite.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>The strongest evidence for the radiative effect for <span class="caps">CO</span>2 (and <span class="caps">CH</span>4, <span class="caps">N2O</span>, etc) is from laboratory experiments,” said Dr. Schmidt. “The strongest evidence for a significant climate sensitivity is from the Last Glacial Maximum (<span class="caps">LGM</span>), when ice sheets covered the planet (about 20,000 years ago), and that has not changed.”</p>
<p>The lead/lag issue that Nova is referring to is only evidence of a strongly coupled system – not evidence that <span class="caps">CO</span>2 has no effect, he explained. As Dr. Dessler <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499">notes</a>:</p>
<p>“What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. <strong>This small initial warming leads to <span class="caps">CO</span>2 being released, which then leads to further warming</strong>.<br /><br />Thus, <span class="caps">CO</span>2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it’s not playing a crucial role in the warming. In fact, its role in warming is pivotal.”</p>
<p>The difference now is that <span class="caps">CO</span>2 has become a “forcing,” he says. What this means is that humans are now essentially “controlling” the global carbon cycle and causing temperatures to rise by pushing the atmospheric concentration of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 ever higher – thus “forcing” the climate.</p>
<p>Anyways, there is a much better argument to explain the <span class="caps">CO</span>2-temperature correlation: namely, that none of the other factors that have influenced the climate in the past – tectonic activity, orbital variations, solar variations, volcanoes, internal variability – can do the evident temperature increase justice. Dr. Dessler <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/175433/87">lays out the case thusly</a>:<br /><br />“If we look at the warming of the last few decades, we can immediately rule out tectonic activity and orbital variations – they are much much too slow to account for warming over mere decades. We can rule out volcanic eruptions for a similar reason – they affect the climate for only a few years. Thus, volcanic eruptions are also likely unrelated to the several-decades-long temperature increase we are experiencing.</p>
<p>We can rule out solar variability because we have high-accuracy measurements of the output of the sun from satellites since the mid-1970s, and we have not seen the increase in solar output necessary to explain the temperature increase. This is not to say that solar is playing no role, just that it cannot explain the majority of the observed warming.<br /><br />Internal variability is the hardest to evaluate. We know that <span class="caps">ENSO</span> significantly changes the Earth’s temperature, and so long-term <span class="caps">ENSO</span>-like variation is something we have to consider. However, nobody has yet put forth a viable mechanism or shown data that such a long-term cycle exists. In the absence of any evidence supporting it, we conclude that it’s likely internal variability is playing a minor role in today’s warming. Clearly, future research might cause us to re-examine this conclusion.</p>
<p><strong>Finally, we have greenhouse gases. In this case, things work out well. Both the timing and magnitude of today’s warming are well-explained by greenhouse gases</strong>.<br /><br />This is why scientists conclude that humans are likely responsible for most of the warming of the last few decades. Greenhouse gases provide a reasonable explanation for the warming, while no other factor can explain the entire warming (though other factors, such as solar, might be playing a minor role).”</p>
<p>Case closed.</p>
<p><em><strong>Read Part One of <a href="../../skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change">Debunking the ‘Skeptics Handbook’: More <span class="caps">CO</span>2 Does Worsen Climate Change</a></strong></em></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/gavin-schmidt">gavin schmidt</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/689">NASA</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3840">real climate</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3841">andrew dessler</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3861">ice cores</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3862">joanne nova</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3863">jo nova</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3864">skeptics handbook</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3865">nova skeptic handbook</a></div></div></div>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:58:54 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3606 at http://www.desmogblog.comDebunking the 'Skeptics Handbook': More CO2 Does Worsen Climate Changehttp://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/headinsand.jpg?itok=YhFv8Yrw" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><h2>If you were to take the sum “knowledge” of global warming skeptics and distill it into a short, quasi-readable manifesto, you’d end up with something like <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/">Joanne Nova’s “The Skeptics Handbook.”</a></h2>
<p>For someone who claims to have been a “veteran believer in greenhouse gases from 1990 – 2007,” Nova sure has a way of rehashing a lot of the same old tired arguments that climate scientists have been shooting down for years – particularly her central point that there is no evidence to link rising carbon dioxide emissions to higher temperatures (more on that later).</p>
<p>Perhaps the most odious aspect of this handbook is that it seems to be aimed squarely at a younger audience – what with its dumbing down of the science and constant repetition of the same flawed arguments. Having failed to gain ground with the adults, the skeptics are presumably turning to the younger generations now to carry their water.</p>
<p>While I’d encourage anyone who wants a substantive discussion of the science behind climate change to go consult the experts (actual scientists like the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/"><em>Real Climate</em> blogger team</a>, for example) – a revolutionary concept, I know – I’ll do my best to debunk some of Nova’s most egregious arguments over the next few days. I’ll get things started today with her “bottom line”: that adding more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere does not cause global warming.</p>
<p>The easiest way to dismiss this point, as <em>Grist</em> contributor and Texas <span class="caps">A&amp;M</span> University Professor Andrew Dessler noted, is to look at Venus’ atmosphere. Though it shares several features in common with our planet – hence its sometimes being called Earth’s “sister planet” – it differs in one crucial aspect: the amount of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 in its atmosphere.</p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p>In fact, many of its unique characteristics can be attributed to the fact that its atmosphere has such a large mass of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 – roughly 97 percent of it. This may help explain why its average surface temperature – around 462°C (or 735°K) – is so high, though there are certainly other factors at play. (The comparison isn’t perfect, of course, since the two planets’ atmospheres differ in other respects, but Venus’ atmosphere does demonstrate that there is a link between higher <span class="caps">CO</span>2 levels and higher temperatures.)</p>
<p>If you want a more detailed, science-heavy (and more robust) explanation for why adding more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere will worsen global warming, then you need to <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/">understand a little more about how the greenhouse effect actually works</a>. One common refrain from skeptics is that the atmosphere is already saturated with <span class="caps">CO</span>2 – in other words, that the greenhouse effect has already reached “its peak performance,” as Nova puts it – so adding more of it, even doubling its atmospheric concentration, shouldn’t make a difference. The problem with this logic is that it ignores the complex, multi-layered structure of the atmosphere by essentially treating it as one unit.</p>
<p>Radiation that leaves and enters the atmosphere must move through several layers. A little of it gets trapped in each one when <span class="caps">CO</span>2 or another greenhouse gas absorbs some of its energy; that energy may be radiated back to the ground or, in some cases, used to speed up the surrounding air molecules, causing more collisions and, thus, a slight warming of the layer in which they sit. A fraction of that energy shifts to higher layers and, when they become thin and cold enough, escapes into space.</p>
<p>It stands to reason then that adding more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere should allow the upper layers to absorb more of it. This means that the energy would have to move up higher still in order to escape into space. Because these layers are particularly cold, they don’t radiate heat upwards as effectively and, therefore, a lot of that surplus energy moves back to the surface – resulting in the planet taking in more energy than it emits.</p>
<p>Since the higher layers are the ones that determine whether or not this excess energy leaves the atmosphere (and, thus, how much extra warming occurs), whether or not the surface levels are saturated – and, just to be clear, they’re not – makes little difference.</p>
<p>If that all sounds a bit confusing, and you’re still not clear on the whole saturation argument (or some skeptic has decided to muddle the situation further by bringing up water vapor), just know this:</p>
<p>“(a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by <span class="caps">CO</span>2, (c) <strong>Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of <span class="caps">CO</span>2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for <span class="caps">CO</span>2</strong>, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.”</p>
<p>Next time, we’ll bust the skeptics’ claim that the world is no longer warming.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/grist">Grist</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/716">joseph romm</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3840">real climate</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3841">andrew dessler</a></div></div></div>Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:24:38 +0000Jeremy Jacquot3593 at http://www.desmogblog.comPolitico Pimps the Global Warming Skepticshttp://www.desmogblog.com/politico-pimps-global-warming-skeptics
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/erica-lovley.jpg?itok=HYpstQR0" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>For at least a year before the 2008 <span class="caps">U.S.</span> election, legions of political geeks were glued to a number of websites, from <a href="http://pollster.com/">pollster.com</a> to <a href="http://www.politico.com/">politico.com</a>. The latter provided more or less excellent coverage, including the all-important electoral map.</p>
<p>But when it comes to the credibility of policy discussions, it looks like they’ve shot themselves in the foot. Via their “reporter” Erika Lovley, they are actively pushing the climate change skeptics’ agenda.</p>
<p>I’ll just give a big hat tip to Brad Johnson at Think Progress, because <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/11/25/politico-lovley-toxic-stupidity/">he sums it all up</a> in one paragraph:</p>
<blockquote>Erika Lovley, the Politico’s energy and environment reporter, today wrote a full-page article on the dying breed of global warming deniers that <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15938.html">promotes their brand of toxic stupidity</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><br /></blockquote><!--break-->
<p>I first saw her article <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&amp;ContentRecord_id=d46b31b9-802a-23ad-479c-02635ecc615d">linked</a> off James Inhofe’s Environment and Public Works Committe site. Either she’s astonishingly irresponsible and clueless as a “reporter”, or is a tool of the skeptics. She says:</p>
<blockquote>Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.</blockquote>
<p>“Global cooling” is now the fashionable point of discussion in skeptics’ circles, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/incoming-transmission-from-planet-flat-earth">promoted by Joseph <span class="caps">D’A</span>leo in particular</a>. Lovley uses <span class="caps">D’A</span>leo as a “scientific” reference:</p>
<blockquote>While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, <strong>Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists</strong> are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.</blockquote>
<blockquote>[…]<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. “Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conservationists at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.”</blockquote>
<p>She’d do Inhofe proud with that reference, as <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&amp;ContentRecord_id=70cfbf13-802a-23ad-433a-58d06b16373f">he has also used</a> <span class="caps">D’A</span>leo’s “science” in his arguments that global warming isn’t real.</p>
<p>And then, she reaches a whole new level of stupid when she refers to “research” gathered by Inhofe’s staff as further proof that there is growing consensus that there is “global cooling”:</p>
<blockquote>Inhofe’s staff has been steadily compiling a list of global cooling findings. <strong>And aides report that they have received countless e-mails from scientists worldwide supporting the theory.</strong> While Inhofe hasn’t indicated that he will move forward with the information anytime soon, his aides continue to compile it.</blockquote>
<p>Her article presents, in clueless, uncritical succession, a veritable rogue’s gallery of skeptics and their respective “think” tanks. There’s the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooler_Heads_Coalition">Cooler Heads Coalition</a>, the <a href="http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Organisations:National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis">National Center for Policy Analysis</a>, among others… and of course, the <a href="http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Cato_Institute">Cato Institute</a>’s notorious propagandist <a href="http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Patrick_Michaels">Patrick Michaels</a>, who told her that:</p>
<blockquote>… <strong>most of Washington is already too deeply entrenched in the global warming mantra to turn back</strong>. <br /><br /> “You can’t expect the scientific community to now come to Washington and say this isn’t a problem.<strong> Once the apocalypse begins to deliver research dollars, you don’t want to reverse it,</strong>” said Michaels. “Washington works by lurching from crisis to crisis.”</blockquote>
<p>Finally, she takes a shot at Al Gore. The sentence in bold is the icing on her ice cream cake:</p>
<blockquote><strong>Despite the growing science, the world’s leading crusader on climate change, Al Gore, is unconcerned. </strong><br /><br /> “Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don’t believe we landed on the moon,” said the former vice president’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. “We don’t think this should distract us from the reality.”</blockquote>
<p>Ms. Lovley could have written a much shorter piece, simply saying:</p>
<blockquote>Today, I looked in my freezer, and there was ice. I interviewed some global warming skeptics. They told me that because there is ice in my freezer, the world is cooling. I agree.</blockquote>
<p>Way to go, Politico. Thanks to Ms. Lovley’s obvious incompetence, you’re obviously not the place to go for real reporting on environmental policy and legislation.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/patrick-michaels">patrick michaels</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/949">D.C.</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1193">jim inhofe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3485">joseph d&#039;aleo</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3629">Politico</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3630">Erika Lovley</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3631">skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3632">lobbyist</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3633">erika lovley politico</a></div></div></div>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:29:53 +0000Page van der Linden3483 at http://www.desmogblog.comIncoming Transmission From Planet Flat Earth!http://www.desmogblog.com/incoming-transmission-from-planet-flat-earth
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/images/blog-feature-3372.jpg?itok=nrKRDG-m" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In an alternate universe, where up is down, planets are flat, and hot is actually cold, lives a certain Republican Senator named <a href="/inhofe-savaging-sound-science">James Inhofe</a>. He has been known to travel to the <span class="caps">US</span> Senate and hold climate change hearings in which <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/opinion/main666190.shtml">science fiction is introduced</a> as “evidence” that climate change is a “hoax”, and in which <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe%27s_400_Scientists">individuals with questionable scientific judgment</a> are called upon to profess their agreement with his views.</p><p>One tired argument that he and his oily friends have consistently brought up is that global warming is cyclical, and is caused by sunspots. Regardless of the fact that the “sunspots and cosmic rays” theory of global warming has been conclusively disproved (<a href="/global-warming-deniers-favorite-sunspot-theory-refuted-again">multiple times</a>), Inhofe brought it up in today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meeting, citing the <em>Farmer's Almanac</em> as his “research” source.</p><p>Regarding the mark-up on the bills being considered, Inhofe <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&amp;ContentRecord_id=70cfbf13-802a-23ad-433a-58d06b16373f">said</a> :</p><div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%">A few of the bills also address global warming. I would like to point out that according to the new Farmers’ Almanac released this week and its time-honored, complex calculations that it uses to predict weather, they predict we will be in for a colder than normal winter. In addition, they suggest that based on a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate that we will be in for a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.</div><p> Wikipedia gives a good <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer%27s_almanac">description</a> of the <em>Farmer's Almanac</em> as:</p><div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%">… an annual North American periodical that has been in continuous publication since 1818. Published by the Almanac Publishing Company, of Lewiston, Maine, it is famous for its long-range weather predictions and astronomical data, as well as its trademark blend of humor, trivia, and advice on gardening, cooking, fishing, and human-interest crusades.</div><p>Click <a href="http://www.almanac.com/">here</a> to see for yourself. It's a quaint publication, with a “<a href="http://www.farmersalmanac.com/weather/a/how-does-the-farmers-almanac-make-its-weather-predictions">top secret</a> ” formula (and forecaster) used to predict long-term weather. Mainstream meteorologists and meterological researchers <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/waforcst.htm">tend to question</a> the accuracy of the <em>Almanac</em>.</p><p>What is absolutely without question is that the <em>Farmer's Almanac</em> is a great source of global warming skepticism. For example, we have well-known skeptic <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D%27Aleo">Joseph D'Aleo</a> writing the climate change section of the <em>Almanac</em>. His <a href="http://www.almanac.com/timeline/index.php">introduction</a> ends with:</p><div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%"> There is another possible explanation for—or, at least, influence on—climate change. This involves natural factors, most notably the Sun and Earth's oceans. We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes. Studying these and other factors suggests that a cold, not warm, climate may be in our future.</div><p>He continues his discussion with classic skeptic stuff, including the pieces “<a href="http://www.almanac.com/timeline/coolclimate.php">Is Global Warming on the Wane? The Case for a Cool Climate</a>” and “<a href="http://www.almanac.com/timeline/solar.php">Is Global Warming on the Wane? How Solar Goes Polar</a>”, the latter being a treatise on the abovementioned “sunspots cause global warming” theory.</p><p>Not surprisingly, Inhofe quoted D'Aleo in one of his <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord_id=DDDC4451-802A-23AD-4000-A9B55ED9489A">rants</a> on the Senate floor a year ago:</p><div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%"> “If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic <span class="caps">CO</span>2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D'Aleo <a href="http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/musings_on_carbon_dioxide/">wrote</a></div><p>Doubtless, the <em>Farmer's Almanac</em> occupies a prominent spot on Senator Inhofe's desk. And given who's writing for their global warming section, it's no surprise that Inhofe thinks the <em>Almanac</em> is a solid scientific source.</p><p>Who knows. Maybe on Inhofe's planet, it is. <br /></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/634">James Inhofe</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1067">solar activity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3089">senator james inhofe (r-ok)</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3455">Farmer&#039;s Almanac</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3456">sunspots</a></div></div></div>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:13:21 +0000Page van der Linden3372 at http://www.desmogblog.comTop 5 Climate "Skeptic" Red Herringshttp://www.desmogblog.com/top-5-climate-skeptic-red-herrings
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/images/blog-feature-2470.jpg?itok=t6vXjycA" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><strong class="hw">red herring</strong><br /><em>n.</em><ol><li> A smoked herring having a reddish color.</li><li> Something that draws attention away from the central issue.</li></ol><p>Whether it's in on a <a href="http://www.newsbusters.org/">right-wing blog,</a> an online forum or at a family dinner, we've all heard an array of lame arguments against the realities of human-induced climate change. </p><p>Here's the top 5 red herrings:<br /></p><p><strong>1. A group of “experts” signed a letter stating that there is no consensus on climate change</strong></p><p>Science is a process of proposing an hypothesis, testing it and then publishing those results in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review">peer-reviewed</a> research journal. <a href="http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/canadianPMletter06.html">A letter signed by a bunch of people</a> stating that the theory of human-caused global warming is wrong does not prove anything scientifically. </p><p>In any major scientific issue there is always a group of outliers and contrarians who challenge the scientific consensus. However, the normal means for such outliers to “debate” issues of science is not to sign letters and go on Fox News, but to do real research and prove the consensus to be wrong.</p>Published research is the only way contrarians can refute the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to human-caused global warming. Anything other than research is a red-herring. <p><strong>2. The climate is always changing - it's natural</strong></p><p>The fact that there has been historical variation in temperature and greenhouse gas levels is well known in science. But natural variation is not what has been observed since the industrial revolution. Check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png">this graph.</a> <br /></p><p>Scientists are observing an unprecedented upswing of greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere and it is not only the never-before-seen concentrations that are concerning, it is also the rate of change. Gradual changes over thousands of years allow species to adapt, but the rapidity of the changes we are seeing today does not allow for such adaptation. Here's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png">what that looks like</a> in terms of temperature rise. </p><p>In other words, the climate change we are seeing today is not “natural,” and to compare it to past fluctuations is like comparing apples to, well, red herrings. </p><p><strong>3. Scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970's</strong></p><p>And in the 1950's scientists were using <a href="http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/313"><span class="caps">LSD</span> to treat alcoholism.</a> The body of knowledge gained by science is always evolving, and we use our best knowledge at any given time to make decisions. In 1971 scientists did indeed claim that the earth could possibly cool due the massive increase in the use of aerosol pollution. </p><p>However, <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643">the claim was very short lived</a> and further research found that any cooling effects of aerosol in the atmosphere would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. </p><p>Comparing the massive amounts of scientific research and multiple lines of evidence pointing to human-caused climate change, to the 37 year old short-lived theory of global cooling is nothing but a smelly, old red herring.</p><p><br /><strong>4. Al Gore flies around the world in carbon-emitting jets</strong><br /></p><p>Al Gore has done an amazing job communicating the science of climate change, and his Oscar-wining film and Nobel Prize prove that. Gore travels around the world raising awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis and his efforts have greatly advanced the issue. Any excessive greenhouse gas emissions Gore uses in these have been outstripped by the amazing work he has done.</p><p>What would you have Gore do? Walk to China? </p><p>Whether you agree with me or not, Al Gore is only one individual and to hold him up as a reason to not do anything personally to reduce your carbon footprint it a lame excuse for inaction. </p><p><strong>5. The Mann “hockey stick” graph</strong></p><p>A climate reconstruction <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf">published in 1998</a>(pdf) by Dr. Micheal Mann showed a major and unprecedented upswing in temperatures compared to previous 2,000 years. The graph showed relatively flat temperature recordings with a dramatic upturn in the last half century making the graph look like a hockey stick. Here's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc.jpg">the graph.</a> <br /></p><p>The Mann Hockey Stick graph featured prominently in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been the focus of attacks by so-called “climate skeptics” ever since. Most of the attack focused on a minor statistical flaw that was uncovered in Mann's original reconstruction graph. This minor flaw was flogged as somehow proving that the entire theory of human-caused climate change was in question.<br /></p><p>The Mann “hockey stick” was one study done 9 years ago that has since been replicated by numerous other studies through multiple lines of evidence. <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png">Look at this graph</a> for other comparable reconstructions. In fact, <a href="http://books.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf">a 2006 report issued</a>(pdf) by the <span class="caps">US</span> National Academy of Science stated this of the Mann “hockey stick:” </p><p class="blockquote">The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20<sup>th</sup> century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has <em>subsequently been supported by an array of evidence</em> that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.”</p><p>In other words, the Hockey Stick is just another red herring propped up by those who insist on keeping their heads firmly planted in the nice warm (and getting warmer) sand.</p><p><em>Like what you read on DeSmogBlog? <strong><a href="/syndication">Subscribe to our <span class="caps">RSS</span> feed here</a>. <br /></strong></em></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/764">al gore</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2236">deniers</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2342">top 5 climate myths</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2343">climate change red herrings</a></div></div></div>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:31:34 +0000Kevin Grandia2470 at http://www.desmogblog.comMediaMatters launches Climate of Smearhttp://www.desmogblog.com/mediamatters-launches-climate-of-smear
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Check out the newly launched “<a href="http://mediamatters.org/action_center/global_warming/">Climate of Smear: Global Warming Misinformation</a>” section on Media Matters website. For the latest outrageous claims made by skeptic favourites such as Fox News pseudo-journalists and Glenn Beck, mediamatters.org is an excellent resource exposing content so blatantly manipulated that it would be funny if it wasn't so scary. </p><p><a href="http://mediamatters.org/">Media Matters</a> is a not for profit watchdog dedicated to “monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> media”. Distorted truths, misconstrued facts and subversive reporting perpetuated by media outlets who serve the conservative, right-wing agenda are exposed to journalists, activists and the general public by mediamatters.com's team of analysts and advisors.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1557">global warming skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1562">mediamatters</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1563">climate of smear</a></div></div></div>Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:16:13 +0000Emily Murgatroyd1915 at http://www.desmogblog.com